[alcook]

This happens every now and again, but is usually a truck or White Van man..

This is where the requisite 'idiot' will purposely sit on the centre white line blocking both lanes of a dual carriageway some several hundred yards plus to where the lanes merge.

I had it tonight where a car tried to block the lanes of a working dual carriageway some 1/4 mile to where the lanes naturally merge. The situation we had is a start-stop road block for 1/4 mile prior to the merge point with the inside lane full and a fully open right carriageway completely empty for hundreds of yards..

Doesn't this idiot realise that whilst trying to stop some merging further up the road, he's simply created two lanes of traffic stretching back much further than it needed to, with an empty useless stretch that has no cars on it and, and this is the best bit, when he gets to the merge point, the backed up traffic will... wait for it... have to merge!!!! But now its compressed and bumper to bumper...!

You may have guessed this is something of a slight annoyance to me as no one has yet explained why idiots like this think they're doing me a favour by forcibly blocking me and hundreds of other cars. Luckily I nipped past and the prat had the audacity to beep his horn!!! I used the empty stretch and simply pulled into a gap that had naturally occurred... causing no issues whatsoever..

Next time I'm ringing the Police and reporting the driver for dangerous driving....

[dxb335d]

Mate, that winds me up also. The two lanes go on that far to ease congestion. These idiots queing up in the left lane aint got a clue and the prick stopping people using the right lane is a moron. ARGH.

Least you got home in the end.

Flash the fookers!

[Hoops]

No doubt the same sort of idiot lorry driver that frequents the M11 and trys to overtake another lorry doing 1mph slower than himself, resulting in a 2 mile rolling traffic jam traveling at 14mph.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by alcook

This happens every now and again, but is usually a truck or White Van man..

This is where the requisite 'idiot' will purposely sit on the centre white line blocking both lanes of a dual carriageway some several hundred yards plus to where the lanes merge.

I had it tonight where a car tried to block the lanes of a working dual carriageway some 1/4 mile to where the lanes naturally merge. The situation we had is a start-stop road block for 1/4 mile prior to the merge point with the inside lane full and a fully open right carriageway completely empty for hundreds of yards..

Doesn't this idiot realise that whilst trying to stop some merging further up the road, he's simply created two lanes of traffic stretching back much further than it needed to, with an empty useless stretch that has no cars on it and, and this is the best bit, when he gets to the merge point, the backed up traffic will... wait for it... have to merge!!!! But now its compressed and bumper to bumper...!

You may have guessed this is something of a slight annoyance to me as no one has yet explained why idiots like this think they're doing me a favour by forcibly blocking me and hundreds of other cars. Luckily I nipped past and the prat had the audacity to beep his horn!!! I used the empty stretch and simply pulled into a gap that had naturally occurred... causing no issues whatsoever..

Next time I'm ringing the Police and reporting the driver for dangerous driving....

I think people in the UK just like to queue. So when traffic is heavy they all start to merge too early, which means the inner lane starts to queue.

Then the vigilante type idiots start to block the outer lane, to prevent those people they see as 'rude' from driving up to the merge point.

In effect, they simply move the merge point further back with this pointless manuoevre and reduce the capacity of the road.

Even 'merge in turn' signage fails to stop this, it's just a symptom of life in the UK.

Traffic should seamlessly 'zip' together at the merge point with both lanes running at the same speed.

[SoYank]

Somewhere I heard that there's such an offense as "inconsiderate driving" or something like that. So, I looked it up at http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section9/chapter_b.html#35:

Careless/inconsiderate driving
This offence is committed when the defendant's driving falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver (see note 15). In determining what is to be expected of a competent and careful driver the prosecutor must take into account not only the circumstances of which the driver could be expected to be aware, but also any circumstances shown to have been within the driver's knowledge (see note 16).

The test of whether the standard of driving has fallen below the required standard is objective. It applies both when the manner of driving in question is deliberate and when it occurs as a result of incompetence, inadvertence or inexperience.

The maximum penalty is a level 5 fine. The court must also either endorse the driver's licence with between 3 and 9 penalty points (unless there are 'special reasons' not to do so), or impose disqualification for a fixed period and/or until a driving test has been passed.

Occasionally a collision occurs but there is no evidence of any mechanical defect, illness of the driver or other explanation to account for why the collision happened. In these cases, a charge of careless driving may be appropriate, but you should exercise caution.

If you can prove how an incident occurred [e.g. a collision] the case can be put on the basis that there is a very strong inference that the defendant was driving below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver. In the absence of any explanation by the defendant as to the cause of the collision, a court may infer that the offence was committed, but where the defendant does provide an explanation for the collision, however unlikely, you will have to consider whether to proceed.

The civil law doctrine of res ipsa loquitur [the thing speaks for itself] has no direct application to the criminal law. (But see Wilkinson at 5.50 "In the absence of any explanation by the defendant, if the only conclusion which is possible to draw is that the defendant was negligent or had departed from what a reasonably prudent and confident driver would have done in the circumstances, a court should convict.")

In some cases, particularly where there has been a collision, the evidence will show that more than one driver was at fault. It will be necessary to establish that there is evidence from an independent source against any driver who is to be charged, but the possibility of charging more than one driver remains if both have failed to comply with the statutory standard.

There are decided cases that provide some guidance as to the driving that courts will regard as careless or inconsiderate and the following examples are typical of what we are likely to regard as careless driving:

overtaking on the inside;
driving inappropriately close to another vehicle;
inadvertently driving through a red light;
emerging from a side road into the path of another vehicle;
tuning a car radio;
using a hand-held mobile phone or other hand-held electronic equipment when the driver was avoidably distracted by that use;
selecting and lighting a cigarette or similar when the driver was avoidably distracted by that use.
These examples are merely indicative of what can amount to careless driving. It is necessary to put the facts in context and consider whether the particular facts of the case warrant a charge of careless or dangerous driving.

You should also consider whether a driver has failed to observe a provision of the Highway Code. This does not itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings, but a failure, particularly a serious one, may constitute evidence of careless or even dangerous driving (see note 17).

In cases where there is an overlap between careless driving and some other offences such as driving with excess alcohol, a regulatory offence, an offence of strict liability, or a 'Construction and Use' offence, the merits of the individual case may often be adequately met by charging the specific statutory or regulatory offence.

In such cases prosecutors should decide whether a separate charge of driving without due care and attention adds anything to the case, and whether any additional penalty is likely to result on conviction, before deciding to charge this offence as well.

Also, and more appropriate to your scenario:

Driving without reasonable consideration - Section 3 RTA 1988
The law
The definition of this offence is set out in the Road Safety Act 2006 (see note 20). A driver can be guilty of driving without reasonable consideration for other persons only if those persons are inconvenienced by his driving (see note 21).The penalties are the same as for driving without due care and attention.

Generally, prosecutors prefer 'Careless Driving"' to "Driving without due consideration" as the former is easier to prove - there is no need to show that an actual road user is inconvenienced, etc. But 'due consideration' is more appropriate where the real harm done is aimed at, or suffered by a particular person.

Note the essential difference between the two offences under Section 3 RTA 1988 is that in cases of careless driving the prosecution need not show that any other person was inconvenienced. In cases of inconsiderate driving, there must be evidence that some other user of the road or public place was actually inconvenienced.

This offence is appropriate when the driving amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience or aggressiveness. There must, however, also be some inconvenience to other road users, for example, forcing other drivers to move over and/or brake as a consequence. The following examples are typical of what we are likely to regard as inconsiderate driving:

flashing of lights to force other drivers in front to give way;
misuse of any lane to avoid queuing or gain some other advantage over other drivers;
unnecessarily remaining in an overtaking lane;
unnecessarily slow driving or braking without good cause;
driving with un-dipped headlights which dazzle oncoming drivers;
driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed;
driving a bus in such a way as to alarm passengers.
Note that you must decide which version of the offence to charge as the section creates two separate offences and there is no alternative verdict provision in the Magistrates/Youth Court (see note 22).

[SoYank]

Originally Posted by bmwbailey

No doubt the same sort of idiot lorry driver that frequents the M11 and trys to overtake another lorry doing 1mph slower than himself, resulting in a 2 mile rolling traffic jam traveling at 14mph.

Don't forget the single blink of the signal before they pull to the right just as you get within a car's length of their bumper.

[CD]

Originally Posted by alcook

Luckily I nipped past

thats what the 335D is for

i get this all the time, just today i had a old git in a corsa who as soon as we entered the dual carriage way imediately pulled into the outside lane, with nothing in front wtf ... then when he did pull over the side and i got past him he had the cheek to tap the side of his head ( insinuating i was a nutter ) and pointed to a speed camera sign ''yes ? and your problem is ?? this is a 70mph and you are doing 45mph ooook ... read your highway code, no longer do we have a man walking infront with a flag !! '

... dont get angry with these people, just point and laugh , it winds them up

[willhollin]

Originally Posted by CD

... dont get angry with these people, just point and laugh , it winds them up

My thoughts exactly, I just give them the thumbs up and laugh, really pisses them off!

[alcook]

I'm waiting for the day when someone comes on to admit they do it and give their reasons... something in their tiny heads thinks it's the right thing to do...

SoYank - Thanks, I now have my official chapter number to quote when I dial 999 and the report them!!

[Hoops]

Totally agree with all the above and could bore you all with endless stories citing the same experiences. But does anyone else on here get the impression that the "general" public ie mr average in his average run of the mill car, is getting less and less tolerant of being overtaken, regardless of speed. I am not talking about mr boy racer in his pimped up scooby or evo tailgating and then blasting past at more than twice the speed limit - i understand why that would piss mr average off. But im finding more and more that even when i overtake mr average nob head when it is safe and clear to do so leaving plenty of room and not breaking the sound barrier to do it - that they still seem to take offence at my audacity in going past them and traveling slightly faster than them??? I will openly admit here and now that i regularly speed and i would be lying if i said ive never done something in my car or bike that wasnt just a little bit naughty - but as and when i do i will always hold my hand up if someone points it out to me. But it really gets my back up when i come up behind mr average doing 50 in a 60, decide i wish to continue doing 60 so overtake him and he still sees fit to flash me honk his horn and gesticulate. I wonder whether it is jealousy in a lot of cases?? Who knows??

[Porscha!]

Yes you are right they don't like to be overtook, at all! Even funnier when your in a car over 30 years old and they just seem to try and speed up so you can't overtake them, funny how they where happy doing that speed until someone decides to overtake them.

Theres a big "I'm better than yow" culture in this country.

This is the reason I love B Roads, A roads are OK, motorways are alright so long as nothing major has gone off BUT town and city driving, yawn, I hate it stop start stop start then you get people cutting accross you, shouting abuse or if you can go up the outside lane (down some hatched lines or something) it's shouting and alsorts, other cars have done it, they don't have a problem with Mr. and Mrs. Average it's when BMW driver, Porsche driver or Classic Car driver does it!!

You notice a lot driving a classic car, people treat you with two extremes you get the wavey, nicey nicey, lovely old car type the older generation treat you better than had you been in a modern car.

Then you get the rude ignorant, tailgating (baring in mind I'm doing 75/80) and I don't have a problem with you overtaking me, my car is slow compared to yours Some people really seem to think old cars shouldn't be on the road, sadly these people are of my generation and that really does make me mad.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by Porscha!

Yes you are right they don't like to be overtook, at all! Even funnier when your in a car over 30 years old and they just seem to try and speed up so you can't overtake them, funny how they where happy doing that speed until someone decides to overtake them.

This makes me chuckle when I'm on the motorway with cruise control engaged. Happens all the time.

You come up fairly quickly to a car which is doing maybe 20mph less than you, but as you approach they decided to randomly accelerate so that you can't overtake.

Why ?? It's not a race, we are on the motorway, so no-one is going to get held up and we aren't even going to the same place

Usually I just leave the cruise on and eventually they drop back to their original speed. Ocassionally you get really stubborn people who start to cruise at exactly the same speed as you. That can get dangerous as you often end up close together so then I just push the cruise stalk forward to increase by 5mph and as soon as you pass they usually drop back.

People are really weird.

Even worse are the ones who drive at 40mph on B-Roads, then accelerate as hard as possible on straight sections to make it harder for you to overtake.

I had a van that did this the other day. 40mph on the twisties and hard up to 80mph on a short section. Thing is I was already committed to the overtake and I had to keep going till I past him.

On the continent slower vehicles routinely pull over to allow you to pass.